David Versus Golliath in Connecticut
There's a fascinating Senate primary race going on in my home state of Connecticut. If you haven't been following it, the New York Times has a decent recap.
In a nutshell, Lieberman, the 2000 Democratic Vice Presidential nominee, is potentially on the verge of being defeated in this year's democratic primary by relative unknown Ned Lamont. Despite this New York Times Editorial endorsing Lamont, the outcry from official Washington regarding the audacity of Connecticut democratic voters has been amusing at best and dagnerous at worst. The annointed "dean of Washington journalists", David Broder, claimed that the Lamont campaign was made up of "elitist insurgents", and Al Hunt, the one who represents the Democratic point of view on CNN's Capitol Gang, writes that a Lieberman defeat will signal the end of the democratic party. As a Connecticut resident who has voted for Lieberman, I hope he loses.
It is impossible to understand this race absent the context of the Iraq war. Lieberman has been a staunch supporter of the war, both leading up to it when he had a lot of company in his party and now when he's almost alone. His support for the war places him at odds not only with Connecticut democrats but with general public, who now, by a 56% - 40% margin disagree with Lieberman and the president and would favor a timetable for withdrawal of troops. This is not a popular position in increasingly progressive Connecticut.
Many of Lieberman's defenders, however, look no further than the Iraq war when trying to understand his current predicament. They see him as taking a principled stand on the War and paying the price within a party that is more and more dominated by anti-war voices. As dangerously wrong as Lieberman is on the Iraq issue, I would probably grudgingly support him in this primary if this were his only divergence from core progressive positions. It is not.
I do not view Lieberman as being a man of principle; I have come to view him as a man who arrogantly believes that he is morally superior to even the voters who elect him. When President Bush nominated Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court, Lieberman voted for cloture, effectively nominating the man who has voted to allow prisoners of war to be held indefinitely and to gut the clean water act. He sides with pharmacists who don't feel like prescribing morning after pills to rape victims, saying that it's a short ride to another pharmacy. In a massive giveaway to credit card companies, he voted to make it much harder for people to file for bankruptcy, even though half of all consumer bankruptcies stem from health care issues. His public rebuke of president Clinton gave the Republicans all they needed to pursue impeachment, and who could forget the kiss. He has received the endorsement of Ann Coulter and Bill O'Reilly, solidifying his standing as the Republicans' favorite Democrat.
Lieberman has benefitted from a media frame that he is a "man of principal", but that principal doesn't seem to extend to a respect for the democratic process. In 2000, Lieberman chose to have it both ways by running both for the senate and for the Vice President. He's at it again this time, effectively stating that, if he should lose the pirmary, he will not abide by its outcome and will run as an independent against the elected nominee of the party. It seems that Leiberman's principles exist primarily to serve Lieberman.
Official Washington is stunned by what they see as liberal zealots targetting a centrist democrat, but the cocktail party media and political establishment understands centrism strictly as voting with the other side, when in reality, Lieberman's stances are not centrist at all, they're downright conservative. Voting to restrict access to birth control and advocating corporate rights over consumer protection are never going to be popular with even the most moderate of democratic voters, and Lieberman is rightly paying the price for his coziness with the far right.
I think there's something very interesting in this race though that goes beyond the war or Lieberman's positions on the issues. It's a classic outsider vs. insider battle. Media folks like Broder, Russert, Hunt and Matthews don't like the fact that they no longer control the story line, as progressive blogs have largely provided the exposure that Lamont isn't getting from traditional outlets. Even Democratic politicians like Barbara Boxer and, yes, Bill Clinton don't like to have their friends challenged by people who haven't paid their dues.
Lamont's campaign is completely out of the control of the democratic party establishment, the same group that has delivered us to our current minority status. The majority of Lamont's money is coming from small donors, while the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee and out-of-state corporate money is supporting Lieberman. If Lamont wins this one, it will be a blow to the Democratic consultant class that has been running democratic campaigns, and, besides unseating a man who has grown completely out of touch with his constituents, that would be the best possible outcome on August 8th.
In a nutshell, Lieberman, the 2000 Democratic Vice Presidential nominee, is potentially on the verge of being defeated in this year's democratic primary by relative unknown Ned Lamont. Despite this New York Times Editorial endorsing Lamont, the outcry from official Washington regarding the audacity of Connecticut democratic voters has been amusing at best and dagnerous at worst. The annointed "dean of Washington journalists", David Broder, claimed that the Lamont campaign was made up of "elitist insurgents", and Al Hunt, the one who represents the Democratic point of view on CNN's Capitol Gang, writes that a Lieberman defeat will signal the end of the democratic party. As a Connecticut resident who has voted for Lieberman, I hope he loses.
It is impossible to understand this race absent the context of the Iraq war. Lieberman has been a staunch supporter of the war, both leading up to it when he had a lot of company in his party and now when he's almost alone. His support for the war places him at odds not only with Connecticut democrats but with general public, who now, by a 56% - 40% margin disagree with Lieberman and the president and would favor a timetable for withdrawal of troops. This is not a popular position in increasingly progressive Connecticut.
Many of Lieberman's defenders, however, look no further than the Iraq war when trying to understand his current predicament. They see him as taking a principled stand on the War and paying the price within a party that is more and more dominated by anti-war voices. As dangerously wrong as Lieberman is on the Iraq issue, I would probably grudgingly support him in this primary if this were his only divergence from core progressive positions. It is not.
I do not view Lieberman as being a man of principle; I have come to view him as a man who arrogantly believes that he is morally superior to even the voters who elect him. When President Bush nominated Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court, Lieberman voted for cloture, effectively nominating the man who has voted to allow prisoners of war to be held indefinitely and to gut the clean water act. He sides with pharmacists who don't feel like prescribing morning after pills to rape victims, saying that it's a short ride to another pharmacy. In a massive giveaway to credit card companies, he voted to make it much harder for people to file for bankruptcy, even though half of all consumer bankruptcies stem from health care issues. His public rebuke of president Clinton gave the Republicans all they needed to pursue impeachment, and who could forget the kiss. He has received the endorsement of Ann Coulter and Bill O'Reilly, solidifying his standing as the Republicans' favorite Democrat.
Lieberman has benefitted from a media frame that he is a "man of principal", but that principal doesn't seem to extend to a respect for the democratic process. In 2000, Lieberman chose to have it both ways by running both for the senate and for the Vice President. He's at it again this time, effectively stating that, if he should lose the pirmary, he will not abide by its outcome and will run as an independent against the elected nominee of the party. It seems that Leiberman's principles exist primarily to serve Lieberman.
Official Washington is stunned by what they see as liberal zealots targetting a centrist democrat, but the cocktail party media and political establishment understands centrism strictly as voting with the other side, when in reality, Lieberman's stances are not centrist at all, they're downright conservative. Voting to restrict access to birth control and advocating corporate rights over consumer protection are never going to be popular with even the most moderate of democratic voters, and Lieberman is rightly paying the price for his coziness with the far right.
I think there's something very interesting in this race though that goes beyond the war or Lieberman's positions on the issues. It's a classic outsider vs. insider battle. Media folks like Broder, Russert, Hunt and Matthews don't like the fact that they no longer control the story line, as progressive blogs have largely provided the exposure that Lamont isn't getting from traditional outlets. Even Democratic politicians like Barbara Boxer and, yes, Bill Clinton don't like to have their friends challenged by people who haven't paid their dues.
Lamont's campaign is completely out of the control of the democratic party establishment, the same group that has delivered us to our current minority status. The majority of Lamont's money is coming from small donors, while the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee and out-of-state corporate money is supporting Lieberman. If Lamont wins this one, it will be a blow to the Democratic consultant class that has been running democratic campaigns, and, besides unseating a man who has grown completely out of touch with his constituents, that would be the best possible outcome on August 8th.
posted by Bleeding Heart at
12:37 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home